On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:07:50AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jens, > > On Wed, 10 May 2023 06:48:39 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Yes, since Linus didn't like the original approach, it was redone > > and that particular patch was originally forgotten and then redone > > without the 'nonblock' variable. So you should just ignore the > > old version, and Christian should just drop that branch from his > > for-next tree as it's dead. > > That appears to have been done now, thanks. Yeah, sorry. LSFMM makes it a bit hard to be consistent about my replies and after my first reply I only had rolled vfs/for-next rolled forward but not vfs-idmapping/for-next. The latter repo will likely go away soonish and then only vfs/* will be left. Christian
